LLB102 Lectures Week 1 What is Torts Law Act or omission that infringes a right Different to other areas of law: Cf criminal law o Criminal law aims to exact a penalty to protect society as a whole and torts law aims to compensate the victim of the wrongdoing Cf contract law o Contract law enforces rights and obligations as agreed between parties and in torts it is the law that imposes expectation of conduct upon persons It is an area of the law which enables a person who has been privately wronged by another to seek compensation or some other remedy, through the court system Compensating victims who’s rights have been infringed (usually through the courts Civil proceeding (not criminal person takes the action not the state) Designed to provide a remedy for a civil wrong A private cause of action Usually located within an existing category of action Based upon the common law supplemented by legislation Torts comes from case law (common law) Classification of Torts Law torts protects recognised interests Person Chattels (personal property) Land (real property) Reputation Two forms of action in tort Trespass Case Characteristics of Trespass Direct Interference Immediate result of the defendant’s act May be an unbroken series of consequences (Hillier v Leitch) Fault To succeed in trespass the defendant must be at fault Interference was intentional or done with a lack of due care (voluntary) Mere intention to the act is irrelevant, unless the consequences were also intended Intentional if the interference was a substantially certain result Actionable per se Damage is not an element of any trespass action If suffer damage- compensatory damages If no damage- nominal damages Plaintiff’s standing to sue derives from the interference with their rights, not because they have suffered loss/damage cf Action on the case – plaintiff must prove they suffered loss/damage as part of their action Onus of Proof Trespass Non-highway (not on road) o Plaintiff prove direct interference, defendant prove that they were not at fault (ie not voluntary, not intentional or not without due care) Highway (on road) o Plaintiff prove direct interference and fault of the defendant Trespass Actions Trespass to person Battery Assault False imprisonment Trespass to land Trespass to personal property Trespass to the Person Battery At common law, battery is An act of the defendant which directly causes some physical contact with the person of the plaintiff; and The defendant must be at fault. QLD Position Criminal Code s 245 A person who strikes, touches or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person’s consent… is said to assault that other person…. Elements Direct or indirect application of force to the plaintiff’s person Without the plaintiff’s consent Defendant at fault (Criminal Code s 245) Direct or Indirect Application of Force Physical contact with plaintiff (to fall under application of force) Need not be person to person E.g. spitting in someone’s face = direct application of force Cannot be passive Hostility/anger does not have to be present but it must be unwanted offensive contact Battery Object of the tort of battery is to protect persons from unwanted or offensive contact Bodily contact as an incidence of everyday life is not battery Without Consent Consent to application of force no action Consent may be a defence to trespass actions Criminal Code s 245 refers to lack of consent as an element Consent can be expressed or implied by circumstances (e.g. sport game) Can be invalidated if fraud or duress or lack of capacity Fault Must be voluntary Intentional or negligent Need not intent to cause harm or injury (motive is irrelevant) Knowledge of the interference is not necessary on part of the plaintiff or the defendant Awareness is not an element Assault Any act of the defendant which directly and either intentionally or negligently causes the plaintiff immediately to apprehend a contact with his or her person. Basically it’s the threat of physical contact Elements Threat of imminent harm Reasonable belief / apprehension that defendant has ability to carry out the threat Defendant at fault A treat of imminent direct contact Words alone can amount to an assault (even by phone or email of the other elements of assault can be proven) Imminent- can be some delay but not a threat to harm at some distant time in the future Apprehension/Reasonable belief in the defendant’s ability to carry out the threat Plaintiff must be aware of the threat Plaintiff need not be afraid Must have either the actual ability or the apparent present ability (e.g. unloaded gun) to carry out the threat A conditional threat can be an assault (e.g. ‘If you come one step closer I will shoot’) Fault Defendant must have intended to create the apprehension of harm in the plaintiff’s mind Need not prove intention to carry out the threat May recklessly cause apprehension False Imprisonment Voluntary act of the defendant subjects the plaintiff to total deprivation of freedom of movement without lawful justification. Period of imprisonment is irrelevant Elements Direct interference with the plaintiff’s liberty Restraint in all directions Defendant at fault Direct interference with liberty Immediate result of defendant’s act is restraint of plaintiff’s liberty “Defendant must be active in promoting or causing the imprisonment” If restraint is result of defendant acting upon the information of another, may be indirect Total restraint Must be restraint in all directions (restricted in their movement) No reasonable means of escape Need not be physical Fault Intentional or negligent Lawful authority Imprisonment must be against the plaintiff’s will (i.e. no consent) Right of release may be governed by contract Lawful arrest/detainment cannot give rise to an action Week 2 Trespass to Land Trespass to land is a direct interference with land in the possession of another, without lawful justification or the occupier’s consent. Elements: 1) Title to sue 2) A direct unauthorised interference with land 3) Fault of the defendant Title to Sue Exclusive possession of the land Not based on ownership (*Newington v Windeyer) Tenant has actual exclusive possession (Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co) (not landlord if tenant is occupying) Must have consent of the tenant (not just landlord) because tenant has exclusive possession An owner who is in occupation of property Licensee does not have title to sue (not on lease, allowed on property by owner) (Western Australia v Ward) **The plaintiff must have exclusive possession at time of interference (Newington v Windeyer) Trespass by relation Plaintiff may bring an action in trespass for interferences between time right of possession arose and actual taking of possession E.g. if lease comes to end and tenant doesn’t move out (give back possession to landlord) leaser can sue tenant The interference Must be a direct interference Must be an interference with land Must be unauthorised Direct Interference is the immediate consequence Throw a rock Walk up driveway cf tree roots grow across boundary Indirect interference = nuisance What is land? Land includes: Buildings, the subsoil and the airspace Limitations on Subsoil ‘unauthorised subterranean incursions into a neighbour’s property are a well-recognised species of trespass’ (Burton v Spragg) Rights to subsoil may be owned by the crown (e.g. a mine) Limitations on Airspace What is necessary for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the land? (Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd) ‘... restricting the rights of an owner to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it’ = must be a reasonable height Graham v KD Morris & Sons Pty Ltd Interference may be transient and still be an actionable trespass(never came in contact with land) (Davies v Bennison) Unauthorised Interference ‘The tort of trespass is committed whenever there is interference with possession of land without lawful authority or, relevantly, the licence or consent of the person in possession’ *TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning Entering land is actionable if you don’t have lawful authority or licence/consent of plaintiff Express Licence/ Consent Consent to entry given by person in possession of land If go outside scope of consent – unauthorised (Barker v The Queen) If remain after achieving purpose – unauthorised Implied Licence Implied licence to members of the public to enter for legitimate purposes. *Halliday v Nevill *TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Anning E.g. ball goes over the fence, police (open and unobstructed driveway, there for a legitimate purpose) Revocation of Consent Revocation must be communicated and understood Reasonable time allowed to leave Wilson v NSW Colwell v Rosehill Racecourse Co Ltd Implied licence to members public can be negated *Halliday v Nevill (signs, locked gate) Plenty v Dillon (express negation) Must be communicated, reasonable person must be able to understand ***The defendant is at fault because the gate was locked meaning consent was revoked and there is no implied licence (Halliday v Nevill) Authorised by law Statutory authority to enter property for specific purposes E.g. police with a warrant, employees of the Brisbane City Council, Fire Department Plenty v Dillon Was for service of a summons (may be served by not entering property) not a warrant Entry had been denied previously o Except in cases provided by the common law or by statute, police officers have no special right to enter land, but consent is implied if it is for a lawful purpose Trespass ab initio Only applies with lawful authority Ensures no abuse of power The six carpenters case (1610) Fault Intentional or careless Voluntary Public Transport Commission of NSW v Perry League Against Cruel Sports Ltd v Scott Motive irrelevant Mistake irrelevant (e.g.